Herald Journal,
Oct. 13, 2003

School site selected east of Howard Lake

By Lynda Jensen

By a unanimous vote, the Howard Lake-Waverly-Winsted school
board selected a parcel of land about onemile east of Howard Lake, owned
by Greg and Faye Bakeberg, as its primary site for a proposed school complex
site Thursday.

The choice goes along with additional land to be purchased
for a future elementary in Winsted, to be chosen later by the new board
elected in the fall.

The property is based on a land swap agreement, which means
the district will get the land in exchange for alternative land to replace
the acreage that the Bakebergs will lose.

The Bakebergs plan to continue farming and need the acreage
for this purpose.

A second alternate choice was made of land that is located
about a mile-and-a-half from Winsted owned by two adjacent property owners,
Bob Schermann and Gertrud Remer.

The third choice pick was property located one mile south
of Waverly owned by William and Katherine Douglas, Jr.

The Bakeberg parcel earned the most points in terms of
19 different criteria set by independent Realtor Bob Merriman.

The criteria included such things as zoning, visibility,
access, utility and road improvement costs, and its location inside the
district, among other things (see boxed area).

"The numbers say that E is your best choice,"
Meyer told the board, in reference the Bakeberg land and the letter assigned
to the property.

The parcel is one mile north of the geographical center
of the school district, commented School Board Member John Lideen.

"I never thought I'd vote for a site on Highway 12,
but I've changed my mind," School Board Member Jim Fowler said.

There will be traffic issues before and after school, as
well as during school events, he said. However, Fowler described the Bakeberg
property as "the best site available."

"This is the site I despised two years ago,"
commented School Board Charles Weber. However, Weber noted that the Bakeberg
site had accessibility and visibility virtues, he said.

The Bakeberg parcel is where growth will occur along Highway
12, School Board Member Al Doering said.

The land would be great for a high school, School Board
Member Ken Zimmerman said.

However, as a kindergarten through 12, the choice was "disastrous,"
Zimmerman said.

The new site, elementary included, wasn't close enough
to Winsted, and opens that area up to Lester Prairie and Watertown, Zimmerman
said.

School Board Member Charlie Borrell pointed out that Winsted
will lose its elementary. "It bothers me to lose the elementary,"
he said.

"The whole thing is not good to me," Borrell
said.

Before passing the motion, Doering was careful to ask questions
about the purchase, wondering what contingency plans there might be, should
the purchase fall through or the referendum fail.

Raymond assured Doering that the Bakebergs were sincere
in their desire to see a new school built.

Doering also noted that there are unknowns regarding cost
of the parcel, and asked how the board would handle the situation if the
cost is more than estimated.

The Bakebergs were the only ones willing to attach a specific
value to their land out of the five final choices, Supt. George Ladd said.
The amount discussed was about $5,500 per acre, he said.

The lack of property owners willing to discuss their land
value caused Merriman to render estimates to some parcels and none for others.

One land owner told Merriman that he obtained an appraisal
at his own cost during the last site search, only to have the board go with
other choices.

It was also difficult to get landowners to come forward,
Ladd noted.

Earlier in the week, during the Monday meeting, it was
decided to take a bus tour of the sites the next morning, with six out of
the seven board members taking the trip. Doering was unable to attend the
tour.

Ladd noted during the bus tour that Wright County planning
and zoning was agreeable with site locations that are one-and-a-half miles
to any city, or a spot annexation, he said.

The only sites without the cost of lift stations to route
utilities would be the Douglas and Frank properties, Meyer said.

The site was chosen out of five sites, which were pared
down from about 10 at a special board meeting last Monday.

Greg and Faye Bakeberg - a nice square property with about
117 acres east of Howard Lake, Meyer said. It is south along Highway 12,
behind the former T&T Auto Parts.

Utilities will need to be routed about 3,500 to 4,000 feet
out to the Bakeberg property, Meyer said.

Turn lanes already exist on Highway 12 for the Bakeberg
property, which would otherwise represent a substantial cost to the project,
Meyer said.

Utilities will need to be routed about 3,500 to 4,000 feet
from the Pit Stop east of Howard Lake. There are a few wetlands on the property.

Neighbors to the south and east are interested in selling
their properties for expansion purposes, Meyer said.

Bob Schermann and Gertrud Remer - about 70 acres north
of Winsted, of which the larger, northern section is owned by Schermann
and the southern piece by Remer.

Meyer described this property as a "complicated site"
because of its layout and how the utilities would come into it.

This land would require about 4,000 feet of utility to
be routed to the site, he said.

Lideen noted that this parcel had poor visibility to the
north.

Weber said it did not offer safe site access.

Doering noted that the shape of this property was long
and narrow, which is undesirable in engineering terms, since a square parcel
is preferred.

There are two houses on the property, which the land goes
around.

Colleen Gutzke - about 120 acres north of Howard Lake.
This site was knocked out of the process following the Tuesday bus ride
tour of each property, since board members felt it was too hard to reach
and find.

During Thursday's meeting, several board members noted
the Gutzke property was out of the way and difficult to access.

"It's the lowest on my list of five," Fowler
said.

The area is hilly with poor sightlines, it was noted during
the bus ride.

William and Katherine Douglas Jr. - about 234 acres south
of Waverly.

The Douglas property encircles the southwestern corner
of Carrigan Lake. In addition, residential developers have been taking up
land in various parts around Carrigan Lake.

Thursday, board members offered comments about the Douglas
property, noting that it isn't central to the district.

Lideen described it as an interesting site, but wondered
if the board would be required to buy all 230 acres of the property.

Borrell noted that it is very close to Wright County Road
110, which is the edge of the district.

"It's very buildable," Fowler commented, saying
he would be willing to accept it as a compromise site at the Thursday meeting.

The Edna Frank property - shaped like an "L",
this property encompasses about 101 acres southwest of Howard Lake.

Since the site has been looked at in the past, the known
faults of it were noted once again, with board members being leery of moving
the power lines.

Howard Lake Mayor Gerry Smith, who was active on the site
committee in the past, confirmed the $500,000 cost to move the poles that
Fowler remembered it being at the Thursday meeting.

The Frank property is too far away for Winsted parents
to use, Ken Zimmerman said. "Lester Prairie or Watertown is a hell
of a lot closer," he said.

Fowler and Raymond both objected to the northeast facing
slope of the Frank property. Weber thought it had poor visibility.

"I wouldn't build anything on a slope like that,"
Raymond said.

Fowler also noted the road to Frank's must be a seven-ton
road.

Tense moments at Monday's meeting

The site choice Thursday was precipitated by a much less
smooth meeting last Monday.

During the Monday meeting, board members cut down the choices
to five sites, from a list of about 11 and a pool of 58 properties.

The Monday meeting was designed for Merriman to give a
final recommendation to the board, Ladd said after the meeting.

This arrangement was supposed to remove the personalities
and individual judgements out of the selection, he said.

"We wanted to get the emotion out of it," Ladd
said. "It wasn't factual last time."

During the meeting, sites were ferred to only by code letters
in front of a crowd of about 50 people, even though by law the identities
of the property are a matter of public record.

The information was released to the newspaper shortly after
the meeting.

After the meeting, Ladd stated that the board simply did
not get to that point on the agenda, and ran out of time. It was the second
of three items listed on the agenda.

During the Thursday meeting, Raymond defended the action,
saying that the board was trying to protect the privacy of the land owners,
and not being secretive.

"The school board has not tried to hide anything,"
Raymond said.

As the meeting started, several board members expressed
immediate misgivings about choosing one site without examination of how
the criteria was applied ­ and sight-unseen.

Lideen asked to change the agenda from facilities land
decision to facilities land discussion.

"There's so many questions I have," Lideen said.
"I couldn't make an informed decision (tonight)."

"I think this is a huge decision without knowing location,"
Lideen said.

Raymond disagreed with Lideen, saying Lideen had information
about the sites since he was on the building and grounds committee.

Three school board members had information about the site
locations well before hand; Lideen, Raymond, and Zimmerman.

"That's what experts are for," Raymond said,
referring to Merriman and Meyer.

Borrell agreed with Lideen, adding that he didn't have
the luxury of being on the committee, and didn't know anything about the
sites.

"It's kind of like buying a chicken in a sack,"
Zimmerman said. "You might get an old hen instead of a young rooster,"
he said.

"I want to be making the decision. I don't want somebody
else to be making the decision that I'm going to be held responsible for,"
Borrell said.

"We're building a k-3 school," Zimmerman said.
"This means the shutting down of three schools. When that happens there's
going to be a roar in this community that could split the school district
again," he said.

"When it's over with, I want to be sure I can walk
down the street and not have someone grabbing me by the neck," Zimmerman
said.

Lideen asked for a special board meeting to choose the
site, after the board viewed the final five sites.

This motion passed with Zimmerman, Borrell, Lideen and
Doering voting in favor of it. Raymond, Fowler and Weber voted against it.

There were also questions as to how Merriman came up with
criteria, such as what the center of the school district was to be, and
how each property was weighted.

However, the differences did not add up to enough points
to change properties' ranking, Meyer noted.

Doering made a point of asking about the way that public
information meetings were conducted, saying that he thought the informal
setting worked fine for gathering information at first, but that a moderator
and question-and-answer format worked better for the future three meetings.

Ladd objected to this, saying that he wasn't sure the consultants
could stay after the set meeting times.

Fowler noted the there have been numerous political forums
with exceptionally good results with moderators.

The district should give out information and trust that
people are intelligent enough to vote yes or no, Weber said.

It was decided to add a short question-and-answer session
after the open houses.

In a related matter, the board heard from resident Bob
Williams, who asked the board to postpone the the school complex issue.

Williams is a supporter of the school with many connections
to it, but did not feel that the complex was the right idea, he said.

When the Williams first moved to Howard Lake, it was during
the teachers' strike. He does not want the district to be divided like that
again, he said.